Abstract.Reports of positive or neutral effects of grazing on plant species richness have prompted calls for livestock grazing to be used as a tool for managing land for conservation. Grazing effects, however, are likely to vary among different response variables, types, and intensity of grazing, and across abiotic conditions. We aimed to examine how grazing affects ecosystem structure, function, and composition. We compiled a database of 7615 records reporting an effect of grazing by sheep and cattle on 278 biotic and abiotic response variables for published studies across Australia. Using these data, we derived three ecosystem measures based on structure, function, and composition, which were compared against six contrasts of grazing pressure, ranging from low to heavy, two different herbivores (sheep, cattle), and across three different climatic zones. Grazing reduced structure (by 35%), function (24%), and composition (10%). Structure and function (but not composition) declined more when grazed by sheep and cattle together than sheep alone. Grazing reduced plant biomass (40%), animal richness (15%), and plant and animal abundance, and plant and litter cover (25%), but had no effect on plant richness nor soil function. The negative effects of grazing on plant biomass, plant cover, and soil function were more pronounced in drier environments. Grazing effects on plant and animal richness and composition were constant, or even declined, with increasing aridity. Our study represents a comprehensive continental assessment of the implications of grazing for managing Australian rangelands. Grazing effects were largely negative, even at very low levels of grazing. Overall, our results suggest that livestock grazing in Australia is unlikely to produce positive outcomes for ecosystem structure, function, and composition or even as a blanket conservation tool unless reduction in specific response variables is an explicit management objective.
No abstract
The exploitation ecosystems hypothesis (EEH) makes predictions about trophic interactions along gradients of primary productivity. The EEH has been shown to apply to a wide range of terrestrial environments but its applicability to arid environments has received little attention. One reason for this is that arid environments may not satisfy the assumptions of the EEH because dearth of water may limit biological activity in both temporal and spatial contexts. The EEH predicts that herbivore biomass should increase linearly with primary productivity in the absence of predators; but when predators are present herbivore biomass will remain relatively constant due to top down regulation. We tested this prediction in an arid environment using rainfall as a proxy of primary productivity and an index of the abundance of the dominant herbivores (kangaroos Macropus spp.). We compared an index of kangaroo abundance at 18 areas situated along a gradient of mean annual rainfall in areas where a top predator (the dingo Canis lupus dingo) was rare and common. We also explored the relationship between the density of artificial water points (AWPs) and kangaroo abundance to investigate if the resource subsidy provided by AWPs allows kangaroos to persist in high numbers. Consistent with the EEH, kangaroo abundance showed a weak relationship with mean annual rainfall in the presence of dingoes but increased with increasing annual rainfall in the absence of dingoes. The density of AWPs was a poor predictor of kangaroo abundance. Our analysis of macro‐ecological patterns suggests that kangaroo populations are primarily top down regulated in the presence of dingoes, but are bottom up regulated in the absence of dingoes. Our findings provide evidence that top down regulation can prevail over bottom up regulation of herbivore populations in arid ecosystems and highlights the usefulness of the EEH as a predictor of macro‐ecological patterns of species abundance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.